Re: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 08:34:14 -0700 "Doug Ewell" wrote: > That's why I wrote "non Basic Latin." > > But I realize that not all fonts will show this clearly, and that the > distinction is lost in speech anyway. I think the difference is actually clearer in speech. Richard.

Re: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

On 9/21/2015 9:24 PM, Janusz S. Bien wrote: Quote/Cytat - Sean Leonard (Mon 21 Sep 2015 10:51:42 PM CEST): Related question as I am researching this: How can I acquire (cheaply or free) the latest and most official copy of US-ASCII, namely, the version that

Re: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 16:52:29 + Peter Constable wrote: > You already have been using "non-ASCII Unicode", which is about as > concise and sufficiently accurate as you'll get. There's no term > specifically defined in any standard or conventionally used for this. As to

Re: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

I would not use the "clumsy 7-bit ASCII" due to the confusion created since long when it could refer to any national version of ISO 646, which reassign some code positions in the rande 0x00 to 0x07F to other characters outside the range U+ to U+007F, while still remaining 7-bit encodings. So

Re: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

On 9/22/2015 2:27 AM, Sean Leonard wrote: Overall, the takeaway is that specifying ISO/IEC 646 / ECMA-6 is not sufficient; you need to include "IRV" as well, or ISO IR No. 6 for the G0 set and ISO IR No. 6 for the C0 set. ...which the Unicode Standard does specify, by stating "IRV" explicitly

Re: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

On 9/22/2015 1:45 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote: I would not use the "clumsy 7-bit ASCII" due to the confusion created since long when it could refer to any national version of ISO 646, which reassign some code positions in the rande 0x00 to 0x07F to other characters outside the range U+ to

RE: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

> If a term were invented, you'd generally have to explain it, and you would do better just to remind readers what ASCII is. +1 Peter Sent from Outlook Mail for Windows 10 From: Richard Wordingham Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Re: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

Martin J. Dürst wrote: >> I was thinking that something like "non–Basic-Latin Unicode" might be > > Is that non-Basic Latin or not Basic-Latin? > >> useful. It avoids the confusion of referring to ASCII as a range of >> code points instead of a separate encoding standard. > > But as a